Rogue federal judges are trying to stop the White House in its tracks. It’s causing a war between the branches.
That’s why the Trump Department of Justice hit a federal judge with a misconduct filing.
DOJ Challenges Federal Judge’s Conduct in Latest Clash with Judiciary
The Department of Justice has taken an eyebrow-raising step in filing a misconduct complaint against U.S. District Court Judge James Boasberg, spotlighting ongoing tensions between President Donald Trump’s administration and certain federal judges who appear determined to obstruct the will of the American people. This action marks another chapter in the administration’s fight to uphold its policies against judicial overreach.
On Monday, the Justice Department submitted a formal complaint, accusing Boasberg, a Washington, D.C.-based judge, of undermining the judiciary’s impartiality. The complaint centers on Boasberg’s role in cases challenging the Trump administration’s use of a historic 1798 law to address illegal immigration by deporting undocumented immigrants to a facility in El Salvador. The filing alleges that Boasberg made inappropriate remarks about President Trump during a Judicial Conference in March.
“While there, Judge Boasberg attempted to improperly influence Chief Justice (John) Roberts and roughly two dozen other federal judges by straying from the traditional topics to express his belief that the Trump Administration would ‘disregard rulings of federal courts’ and trigger ‘a constitutional crisis,’” said Chad Mizelle, chief of staff to Attorney General Pamela Bondi, in the complaint. These remarks, the Justice Department argues, were not only out of line but also baseless, given the administration’s consistent compliance with court rulings.
Mizelle emphasized that Boasberg’s comments were particularly egregious because they lacked any factual grounding. “Although his comments would be inappropriate even if they had some basis, they were even worse because Judge Boasberg had no basis,” he stated. The complaint further notes that shortly after these statements, Boasberg issued an order restricting the administration’s use of the Alien Enemies Act, suggesting he acted on his own biases rather than legal merits.
A report by The Federalist earlier this month first brought Boasberg’s remarks to light, citing a memorandum from the Judicial Conference. In response to Boasberg’s concerns, Chief Justice John Roberts reportedly expressed hope that no constitutional crisis would arise, attempting to diffuse the judge’s inflammatory rhetoric.
Attorney General Pamela Bondi, a staunch supporter of President Trump’s agenda, confirmed she directed the complaint’s filing. In a public statement, she declared that Boasberg’s remarks “have undermined the integrity of the judiciary, and we will not stand for that.” Her decisive action reflects the administration’s commitment to holding activist judges accountable.
Earlier this year, the Justice Department filed a similar misconduct complaint against another D.C. district court judge, Ana Reyes, for her conduct during hearings on Trump’s executive order banning transgender individuals from military service. The administration’s willingness to confront such judges head-on demonstrates its resolve to protect its lawful authority.
The complaint against Boasberg urges Chief Judge Sri Srinivasan of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals to take decisive action. It requests that Boasberg’s cases tied to the administration be reassigned and that a special investigative committee be formed to consider disciplinary measures, including a public reprimand or even referral to the Judicial Conference for impeachment proceedings if willful misconduct is found.
Such a formal complaint against a sitting judge is rare and signals the administration’s frustration with judges who appear to prioritize personal biases over legal impartiality. Typically, the Justice Department would address judicial disagreements through appeals, but the extraordinary nature of Boasberg’s conduct warranted this direct approach. Private discussions among judges at their annual conferences are seldom exposed, making this public dispute all the more significant.
President Trump has not shied away from calling out judges who obstruct his agenda. In March, he labeled Boasberg a “Radical Left Lunatic Judge” and demanded his impeachment, a stance that resonates with millions of Americans frustrated by judicial activism. Chief Justice Roberts issued a rare rebuke, stating, “For more than two centuries, it has been established that impeachment is not an appropriate response to disagreement concerning a judicial decision.” Yet, many Trump supporters see this as an attempt to shield judges who overstep their bounds.
Impeachment of federal judges is a rare occurrence, with only 15 impeached by the House since 1803, and just eight convicted by the Senate, according to the Brennan Center for Justice. However, the Trump administration and its supporters argue that such measures may be necessary when judges blatantly undermine the democratic will expressed through the president’s policies.
Boasberg, appointed to the D.C. district court by former President Barack Obama and previously named to local courts by George W. Bush, had a relatively balanced record before clashing with Trump. During Trump’s first term, he made rulings that benefited conservatives, such as releasing FISA court materials exposing flaws in the FBI’s Russia probe and enabling access to Hillary Clinton’s private server emails. Yet, his lenient sentencing of January 6 defendants has drawn criticism from those who support strong law enforcement.
